There's yet more evidence now that politicians of all political persuasions sometimes forget that microphones are likely going to be turned "on" when they're around. The Associated Press writes that after yesterday's Democratic candidates forum at the NAACP convention ended:

Fox News microphones picked up (Sen. Hillary Rodham) Clinton and (former senator John) Edwards discussing their desire to limit future joint appearances to exclude some rivals lower in the crowded field. "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group," Edwards said.

Clinton agreed. "We've got to cut the number. ... They're not serious," she said, then thanked (Sen. Barack) Obama and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich as they walked by. Turning back to Edwards, she added that she thought their campaigns had already tried to limit the debates and "we've gotta get back to it."

Kucinich, one of the candidates that Clinton and Edwards may have been discussing, isn't taking kindly to such talk: "Imperial candidates are as repugnant to the American people and to our democracy as an imperial president," he says.

Our friends at ABC News' Political Radar say they're pressing the Clinton and Edwards campaigns to find out more about what the candidates said. ABC also has video and audio of the Clinton-Edwards conversation. The moment when Kucinich walks by comes about 31 seconds into it.

President Bush, you'll recall, has also been a little too candid around live mics in the past -- including last summer when he let slip the "s-word."

oh...let me guess? there are too many commercial and technical interruptions...too many breaks...too much waiting around...not enough time for work...yeah right.

Why don't you give yourself some credibility and start posting all the *&^% that goes against your pet politicians as well?

aye like obama...but not as much lying going on with him...

at least not the surreptitious way rodham clinton tries to paint herself...

aye'm sure bill has had to tell her more than once not to wear blackface makeup when speaking near the apollo theatre.

hillary has only one term on obama...aye'll take his lack of experience over hers any day.

...my beef is that many african americans believe that she has their best interests at hand and that is not the case...aye have converted many to the obama line...but some think bill is going to be running the show...we trini americans know that voting is pretty bunk...the republican party doesn't care...and the democrats think they own us...hillary thinks she owns the african american vote...aye don't subscribe to her overconfidence...

are you santa claus, hillary? are you asking the usa to draw a retreat down and explain it to the corporate MEDIA morons like o'reilly...olberman...hannity and clomes and ask them to keep a secret? tell ya what...aye am interested in how the withdrawl is gonna go down...mail me the toy catalog, rodham hill...then aye'll ask you to figure out what else aye want from santa claus....liary, your true colors are showin', girlfriend.

boy, aye hope people wake up and really seek tall experience...perhaps short senatorial time...but a person of generational change rather then get short changed on a one-term-and-a-half rent-a-senator who is old on drama and big speeches and small on answering even the tiniest of questions from an average woman on the street...wake up...don't get crazy on us now, mrs. santa claus.!

WASHINGTON: The U.S. Defense Department told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the United States eventually plans to withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.

In a stinging rebuke to a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman responded to questions Clinton raised in May in which she urged the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of American forces.

A copy of Edelman's response, dated July 16, was obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.

He added that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."

Today in AmericasThompson's emergence shuffles the Republican deckAmerican women supportive but skeptical of Clinton, poll saysTo Democrats, report proves war in Iraq is misguidedClinton spokesman Philippe Reines called Edelman's answer "at once outrageous and dangerous" and said the senator would respond to his boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Clinton privately and publicly pushed Gates and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, two months ago to begin drafting the plans for what she said will be a complicated withdrawal of troops, trucks and equipment.

"If we're not planning for it, it will be difficult to execute it in a safe and efficacious way," she said then.

The strong wording of the response is unusual, particularly for a missive to a member of the Senate committee with oversight of the Defense Department and its budget.

Clinton aides said the letter ignored important military matters and focused instead on political payback.

"Redeploying out of Iraq with the same combination of arrogance and incompetence with which the Bush administration deployed our young men and women into Iraq is completely unacceptable, and our troops deserve far better," said Reines, who said military leaders should offer a withdrawal plan rather than "a political plan to attack those who question them."

As she runs for president, the New York senator has ratcheted up her criticism of the Bush administration's war effort, answering critics of her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq invasion by saying she would end the war if elected president.

If she should win, Clinton may find herself overseeing such a withdrawal policy, but she is hardly alone in raising the issue.

Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana warned Thursday at a hearing that if U.S. military leaders and Congress "are not prepared for these contingencies, they may be executed poorly, especially in an atmosphere in which public demands for troop withdrawals could compel action on a political timetable."

Edelman's letter did offer a passing indication the Pentagon might, in fact, be planning how to withdraw. "We are always evaluating and planning for possible contingencies," it said. "As you know, it is long-standing departmental policy that operational plans, including contingency plans, are not released outside of the department."

Edelman is undersecretary of defense for policy. He also is a former U.S. ambassador and one-time aide to Vice President male private part Cheney. During the 2004 campaign, Cheney told Iowa voters that electing the Democratic ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards would risk another terror attack.

Kerry jumped to Clinton's defense on Thursday, deriding what he called smear tactics by the administration.

"They will say anything, do anything, and twist any truth to avoid accountability," said the Massachusetts senator.

Sen. Obama has ESCALATED his criticism of Hillary Clinton -- taking it to political defcon three -- in an exclusive on-camera interview with NBC News.

It is a lot tougher than what he said in the debate -- or in the Iowa newspaper interview yesterday.

During a stakeout outside his senate office, Obama said in part:

"I think what is irresponsible and naive is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out -- and you know I think Senator Clinton hasnít fully answered that issue.

"The general principle that I was laying out is that we should not be afraid as America to meet with anybody.

"Now, they may not like what we want to hear -- so if Iím talking to the President of Iran, Iím going to inform him that Israel is our stalwart ally, and we are going to do what's necessary to protect them -- that we will not accept a nuclear bomb in Iran, but that doesnít mean we canít say that face to face. And obviously, the diplomatic spadework has to be done ahead of time.

"The notion that I was somehow going to be inviting them over for tea next week without having initial envoys meet is ridiculous.

"But the general principle is one that I think Senator Clinton is wrong on -- and that is if we are laying out preconditions that prevents us from speaking frankly to these folks, then we are continuing with Bush-Cheney policies, and I am not interested in continuing that.

"I know that she has said in the past that we have to talk to our enemies -- well thatís what this is about. And if we say that we will not talk to them unless they meet a series of preconditions, then thatís the same position that Bush and Cheney have maintained over the last six years, and it has made us less safe. And thatís what I think is going to be a significant part of this debate in 2008.

"We responded to her in this situation, and I think there is a genuine difference, if there isnít a difference, then Senator Clinton should explain it. I think that we should talk to everybody.

"That ultimately is whatís going to create the environment in which we can reduce some of the threat levels we are facing. To fail to do that is the same conventional Washington thinking that led many including Senator Clinton to go ahead with the war without having asked adequate questions."